Comparative Review of Pedagogical Technologies in the ... · specialists (Rock et al, 2016). The paper outlined basic types of teaching techniques (Babanskii, 1977), their advantages

CORRESPONDENCE Svetlana Satzanovna Kulmagambetova [email protected]

© Kulmagambetova et al. Open Access terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) apply. The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes.

Introduction

The authors of this paper considered modern teaching experience and its types

with the view of improving the efficiency of material assimilation by the students.

The technology of the educational process is a key factor in the training of future

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION

2016, VOL. 11, NO. 9, 2567-2581

DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2016.707a

Comparative Review of Pedagogical Technologies in the Educational Process of Higher Educational Institutions

Svetlana S. Kulmagambetovaa, Saltanat K. Iskindirovab, Zhadyra S. Kazhiakparovac, Kulyash T. Bainiyevad, Chimay Pandyae

aWest Kazakhstan State University named after M. Utemissov, Uralsk, KAZAKHSTAN; bAktobe Regional State University named after K. Zhubanov, Aktobe, KAZAKHSTAN;

cWest Kazakhstan Innovative Technological University, Uralsk, KAZAKHSTAN; dAtyrau State University named after Kh. Dosmukhamedov, Atyrau, KAZAKHSTAN;

eDev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar, INDIA

ABSTRACT

The present rapid technological progress and the post-crisis period determine the increasing

demand for revision of existing concepts and strategies aimed at maintaining global

development. This article describes pedagogical technologies, indicates the need to reform the

outdated education systems or to reject them completely in order to improve productivity of

students. The authors provided a comparative analysis of pedagogical technologies used in

higher educational institutions, their strengths, weaknesses and development prospects. The

study considered the approaches suggested by domestic and foreign researchers, clarified

definitions, classification, typology, as well as specific features and setbacks of pedagogical

technologies. The authors developed a training system, which implies direct involvement of

each student into the learning process. The study specified the purpose of learning, which

implied development of student creative abilities to get new experience. The authors proposed

substitution of "authoritarian" relations between the student and the teacher for "partnerships"

that could improve their relationship, mutual understanding and general efficiency. Comparison

of pedagogical technologies provides their detailed description, the ability to select the most

appropriate methods and approaches based on the requirements of relevant disciplines that will

meet the highest quality standards for students and teachers.

KEYWORDS ARTICLE HISTORY Pedagogical technology, higher educational

institution, comparative review, teaching and learning process, teaching experience

Received 12 March 2016 Revised 29 April 2016 Accepted 9 May 2016

OPEN ACCESS

2568 S. S. KULMAGAMBETOVA ET AL.

specialists (Rock et al, 2016). The paper outlined basic types of teaching techniques

(Babanskii, 1977), their advantages and setbacks, development and influence

methods. The methods were discussed in order to select the most appropriate, which

could be used by teachers in order to achieve the best result. The paper also

considered their future prospects and historical development (Bespalko, 1995).

Being one of the key social development instruments education involves

improvement of training and retraining of highly qualified specialists in different

fields, both at the local and international level. In general, the term "pedagogical

technology" implies a specifically normalized educational process (form, content,

training methods, products and output results) or educational activity that

purposefully changes the students, or provides the possibility to change by

themselves (Rudy, 2016). Each technology has its own specific purpose, application

limits and innovative possibilities (Ai-lan, 2007).

The analysis of training shows a contradiction between the need to train

students for life in a different type of socio-cultural development and the existing

educational system, which does not provide the development of student autonomy

and responsibility in learning, intrinsic motivation activities and teaching skills to

plan their own work, including the decision-making process. The learning conditions

characteristic of reproductive pedagogy significantly slow down the inclusion of high

school graduates into the modern society.

This article includes data providing a detailed comparative description of

pedagogical technologies that could be used in the teaching system. The authors

provided a qualitative assessment of each approach in order to identify the most

appropriate both for the teacher and for the student.

Literature Review

Selection of teaching and learning technology is the main goal of modern

education (Tondeur et al., 2012; Watson & Tinsley, 2013; Yu & Jo, 2014: Galimova

& Shvetsova, 2016); the teaching technology is an important factor in training each

student as an individual and a qualified person in the modern world (Cohen,

Manion & Morrison, 2013).

In the present-day information age, society should be able to think critically,

solving various problems, cooperating with other people, communicating, taking the

initiative (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). Therefore, the appropriate teaching approach

can solve this problem with minimum efforts and maximum training results

(Sarkar, 2012; Peeraer & Van Petegem, 2012; García-Peñalvo, Colomo-Palacios &

Lytras, 2012; Selwyn, 2012).

Depending on the nature of the training environment (or condition), all the

present technological training methods of can be divided into three groups:

1. Technological methods which can be used in the traditional time system

(problem-based teaching (Makhmutov, 1975, Kudryavtsev, 1991), developmental

teaching (Davydov, 1995), role playing and others);

2. Technological methods that require organizational restructuring of the

university work (concentrated training (Gitman, 2015; Ostapenko, 1999), collective

training (Dyachenko, 2004; Myasoyed, 2004) and other methods);

3. Technological methods, which require changes in the content of education

("dialogue of cultures", probability education (Lobok, 1996; Khristosenko, 1996) and

others).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 2569

It is impossible to ignore the importance and necessity of using pedagogical

technologies in the training process, since their correct application greatly simplifies

and improves the quality of the educational process (Willis, 2008). Choosing poor or

outdated teaching technology causes inability of higher education institutions to

provide high-quality professionals for the labor market.

Aim of the Study

The aim of this study was to conduct comparative analysis of the existing

educational technologies in the higher education system with due regard to the

pedagogical research experience; clarification of their definition, classification,

typology, as well as their specific features and setbacks.

Research questions

The overarching research question of this study was as follows:

What pedagogical technology of the educational process is the most effective?

Methods

This research was based on a pilot study. This research method has a clear

methodological basis and performs the theoretical function. It is used prior to basic

research and acts as a specific means of testing hypotheses and tasks, as well as

professional skills and methodological tools. Pilot study presents a study according

to the "shortcut" plan - it is based on using small samples, not full information is

gathered, the obtained information is analyzed only by the most important criteria.

The pilot method used in this article provides the possibility to “refine” research

tools, to identify and to eliminate defects and defects in the mathematical analysis.

Conducting pilot study in this case gives the possibility to avoid collecting "empty"

information and it is generally used at the initial stage of a major study.

Data, Analysis, and Results

Pedagogical technologies are characterized by a wide range of classifications

providing their various definitions.

Based on the above scientific literature, the authors of this research concluded

that the idea of "pedagogical technology" was characterized by typological division,

similar to classification features. The present-day research papers dedicated to

various educational aspects indicate the presence of different types of educational

technologies, which suggest the following assumptions.

It should be pointed out that the following pedagogical technologies (Rock et al,

2016; Bespalko, 1995; Rudy, 2016) presented at Figure 1 are the most widespread

and common.

The authors of this research formed a table illustrating detailed classifications

of pedagogical technologies, taking into account a wide range of approaches and the

aforementioned aspects (Таble 1).


Figure 1. Structural and functional model of dialectical explanation of the objective

contradictions.

Table 1. Classification of pedagogical technologies

Depending on the teaching environment (or conditions)

– Technological methods, which can be used in the traditional time system (problem-based learning, developmental teaching, role playing, etc.);

– Technological processes that require organizational restructuring of the university work (concentrated training, collective training, etc.);

– Technological methods, which require changes in the content of education ("dialogue of cultures", probability education and other methods).

By the level of their use: General pedagogical, specific methodical (subject) and local (modular) technologies.

By their philosophical basis:

– Materialistic and idealistic;

– Dialectical and metaphysical;

– Scientific (scientistic) and religious;

– Humanistic and inhumane;

– Anthroposophical and theosophical;

– Pragmatic and existentialist;

– Free education and enforcement and other technologies By the leading factor of mental development

– Biogenic;

– Sociogenic;

– Psychogenic;

– Idealistic technologies By the scientific concept of learning by experience

– Associative reflexive;

– Behavioral;

– Gestalt technologies;

– Interior technologies;

– Developing technologies;

– Suggestive technologies;

– Neurolinguistic technologies


Table 1. Classification of pedagogical technologies (Continued)

By orientation at personality structures:

– Information (formation of knowledge and skills);

– Operating (formation of mental action methods);

– Emotional-artistic and emotional-moral (formation of aesthetic and moral relations);

– Self-development technologies (formation of self-governing mechanisms of the person);

– Heuristic (development of creative abilities);

– Applied (formation of effective and practical sphere) technologies

By content and structure: – Training and educational;

– Secular and religious;

– General and professionally oriented;

– Humanitarian and technocratic;

– Various sectoral;

– Specific thematic;

– Monotechnologies, complex (politechnologies) and penetrating technologies.

By organizational forms: – Group-oriented and alternative;

– Academic and club;

– Individual and collective ways of teaching;

– Differentiated teaching By the type of organization and management of cognitive activities (according to V.P. Bespalko): Combinations of these “monodidactic” systems: the traditional system developed by Y.L. Komenskiy

– Lecture training;

– Training through audiovisual means;

– “Consultant” system;

– Education via textbooks;

– “Small groups” system;

– Differentiated teaching methods;

– Computer training;

– “Tutor" system;

– Individual training;

– "Software training”

– Lecture method + self-study by using books;

– Modern traditional learning (group system + hardware);

– Group and differentiated ways of learning (system of small groups + tutor);

– Programmed learning (software control with partial use of all other technologies).


Table 1. Classification of pedagogical technologies (Continued)

By an approach to the child:

– Authoritarian;

– Didactic-centered;

– Person-oriented (anthropocentric);

– Humane and personal;

– Technology cooperation;

– Free education;

– Esoteric technologies. By the dominant method: – Dogmatic;

– Reproductive;

– Explanatory and illustrative;

– Programmed instruction;

– Problem-based learning;

– Developmental teaching;

– Self-development training;

– Dialogic;

– Communicative;

– Role playing;

– Creative information (computer-assisted) and other technologies.

By student categories: – Mass (traditional academic technology, designed for the average student);

– Advanced technologies (in-depth study of subjects, special education, etc.);

– Compensatory education technologies (pedagogical correction, support, alignment, etc.);

– Victim technology (surdo-, ortho, tiflo- oligophrenopedagogics).

By modernization of the existing traditional system:

– Based on humanization and democratization of the pedagogical relationship;

– Based on revitalization and intensification of student activity;

– Based on the effectiveness of the organization and management of the learning process;

– Based on methodological improvements and didactic reconstruction of teaching material;

– Nature-aligned, alternative, holistic technologies used by experimental schools.

The suggestive type of training is one of the most discussed and controversial

types of pedagogical technology. Being part of suggestive pedagogy, this type is

characterized by highly visible psychological concept, originating from 1920s.

Suggestive training is particularly relevant in the study of foreign languages. This

type of learning implies unconscious perception of learning material by students; it

is characterized by their absolute passivity in the learning process. Specificity of this

method includes presentation of the teaching material focused on:


● “Sentinel” functionality in one’s sleep (hypnopedia); ● Organization of the transition states of biorhythms - hypnotic phases

(rythmopedia) and associated states; ● Progressive muscle relaxation and autogenous training (relaxopedia).

Dogmatic teaching became the first widespread teaching type. This teaching

type emphasized mechanistic learning of the teaching material, its memorizing

without understanding the meaning (cramming). Historically, this demanded many

literate people, who were able to count and to write, but not to think. Any deviation

from the dogma was immediately suppressed, and the most crucial means of

combating heresy was the guaranteed human inability to provide critical

assessment of any memorized material, to analyze and to evaluate the facts. Only

few people made their way through cramming to their own opinion, to the truth.

With the development of production means, complexity of labor process and

specificity of problems solved by employees required skillful work instead of the

“template” actions along with the use of best labor practices in various situations;

time required the real “homo sapiens” instead of the machine “appendage”. In this

respect, it is easy to see the result of the reproductive type of the training process.

The reproductive type of training was no less important. Reproductive training

aimed at the fastest possible learning of the individual human experience is self-

explanatory, because it implies common traditions. Curricula, textbooks, the usual

style of student interaction, the established forms of learning and, above all, the

academic process itself, offices and academic buildings - all this is adapted today in

the most effective way to the requirements of this type of the teaching and learning

process.

Reproductive types of educational technologies require competent experts, but

at the same time – executives who are unable to create new knowledge.

Reproductive knowledge results in human understanding, and in the ability to

reproduce.

The productive type of pedagogical technologies is one of the important modern

training types. The productive type of pedagogical technologies is based on

independent student activities, not organized by teachers, aimed at the development

of creative thinking as key training moment. This results in the development of

creative thinking.

The personality-oriented type of pedagogical technologies results in personality

development. Participation in role (business) plays provides the possibility to detect

personal qualities of students, i.e., control involves simulation of personality

situations. The foregoing types are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Types of pedagogical technologies

Type Result Student cognitive

activity Typical training

methods

Suggestive Psychological readiness Neutral activity — Dogmatic Formal attitude Cramming Communicative

Reproductive Formal knowledge Understanding,

reproductive activity Explanatory-illustrative

Productive Creative thinking Independent search,

creative activity Problem-based learning

Personality-oriented

Personality Collective search Solution of tasks having

personal, vital sense


Having classified and outlined the main types of pedagogical technologies, the

authors of this study consider it necessary that the purpose of their use be clarified.

Setting and achieving the purposes are complex and multifaceted processes. The

apparent purpose, of course, does not automatically lead to the desired result;

however, it contributes to the request of the teacher and the student to proceed with

training. As A. V. Khutorskoy (2002) rightly noted, "Targeting in training implies

establishment of the main training goals and objectives by the teacher and students

at certain stages. It is necessary for the design of student educational activities

associated with the external social order, educational standards, with the specific

internal learning conditions - the level of student development, motives of their

teaching, specific features of the taught subject, available means of training,

pedagogical views of the teacher, etc." (Khutorskoy, 2002).

E. A. Kryukova (2013) indicates that the analysis of modern pedagogical

knowledge showed the absence of coherent theory in modern pedagogy that could

revealing the relationship between the pedagogical goals and related tools. Target

attitudes in the traditional pedagogy are achieved by certain types of subject

activity, based on the study of concepts and rules. The personal model of education

has different goals; the main one is to master the experience of "being a personality",

the emergence of individual self-organization. Activity in the personality model is

feasible only provided free exchange of views, ideas, personal involvement of both

students and teachers in the training process. Activities in terms of personality

development acts a background for any other learning activities. Its subject implies

meaning-making, development of personal qualities of the individual. The ultimate

goal of these activities implies development of the meaning-making relationship of

the subject.

Therefore, it implies development of the training process in which students act

as active learners who acquire knowledge and skills, understanding the need for

such activities. Such learning environment can be created through research focus of

training and the dialogue as one of its elements.

The research focus in training is based on personal experience of students,

which is organized by their teachers. The purpose of training is to develop student

creative abilities to explore new experiences. This development is based on a

purposeful formation of creative and critical thinking, experience and tools to be

used during teaching and research activities, role-playing and simulation, search

and definition of one’s personality meanings and value orientations. The training

itself and its outcomes acquire personal character.

Modern education is oriented not only at the formation of new knowledge but

also at the restructuring of existing knowledge. This implies stimulating cognitive

activity of students by all means, using different types of educational dialogue,

imagination, analogies and metaphors, working with conceptual models, etc.

Moreover, the teacher will have to live with the fact that the results of independent

student "discoveries" can be clearly incomplete and conceptually "unfinished."

Modern psycho-pedagogical study are oriented at tools that could be used to work

both with the existing and with the new ideas in the teaching and learning process.

These guidelines can be represented as a set of psychological and didactic

requirements:

1. Students should have a feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing knowledge

and skills;


2. New knowledge, acquired by the student should be accessible and

comprehensible;

3. New ideas need to be credible in the student perception and combined with

the existing student worldview;

4. New ideas should be more useful than the old ones; they should be helpful in

solving the problem, lead to new ideas and give more explanation or prediction

opportunities (Zeer, 2015).

Modular training technology

The origin of modular training ideas is associated with the emergence of a

concept based on teaching content units (Postlethwait, Novak & Murray, 1972;

Goldshmid & Goldshmid, 1972).

The essence of this concept lies in the fact that a relatively small portion of the

teaching material can be taken as an autonomous subject and a training course can

be formed by using these autonomous subjects. Originally, such units was called

"micro-courses", later - "mini-courses". Then these units were called "modules", as a

generalizing concept.

The modular technology of training gradually acquired the self-didactic system

status, relying on a number of essential aspects of programmed teaching:

individualized pace of learning and cognitive activity, constant reinforcement of

student actions by self-control, consistency, and logical character of these actions.

Modular training (MT) integrated theoretical and practical experience and

generalizations of problem-based learning, as well as the principle of individuation

and training differentiation. Features of reflexive approach largely contributed to

the creation of MT foundations, definition of principles and rules of its construction,

methods and forms of its realization.

Modular technology, didactic system, individual courses based on MT

principles, have been developed and are currently used in many colleges and high

schools, universities in the US and Western Europe.

Module (from Latin “modulies”) is understood as “measure" or "method".

Developers of modular technologies highlight correlation of the didactic module

definition with its understanding in natural sciences, technology: module presents a

certain integral functional system, limited in scope, which provides performance of a

specific function from the beginning up to the end. In other words, any module

presents a functionally and structurally independent unit, which can be a relatively

independent part – an object within another more complex object or as a single

product, unit or object.

Therefore, any module presents a target functional unit in which the

educational content, mastering technology and the system of control and correction

are combined in a system characterized by a high level of integrity.

Various researchers argue that a module can be regarded as a training

program, customized by content, teaching methods, level of independence, and pace

of learning and cognitive activity of students. Each module has its didactic purpose.

It should comply with a sufficient integrity of the training material. This implies the

following:

● The module sets out a fundamentally important content of educational

information; ● The module provides explanation to this kind of information;


● The module determines conditions of “immersion” into such information

(through educational technology, specific references, and methods of obtaining

information); ● The module describes theoretical tasks and recommendations to them; ● The module includes practical tasks; ● The module provides a system of independent and external control.

In theory and practice of modular training, the ratio of the theoretical and

practical material in the module makes 80/20%.

According to the target principle, there are three types of modules.

Figure 2. Three main types of technologies

Modular technology can be used in any system of training, including external

studies: precise “dosing” of educational material, information and methodological

support, which implies the program of coherent actions for the student, the

opportunity to learn the material at any convenient time - all this provides the

possibility to improve the general quality and efficiency of the training process.

Modular program based on relevant modules presents the main means of

modular technology, in addition to the module as part of the program material

related to a certain discipline.

The modular program is a system of means and methods, which helps to

achieve the didactic goal by integrating all modules of a specific discipline. It is

developed by a teacher with due regard to the main ideas of the course. Each idea

corresponds to a certain module developed by the teacher. Their aggregate provides

implementation of the main purpose of the entire discipline.

The researchers recommend starting each module with:

1) Input control of knowledge and skills (with the view of determining the level

of student readiness to the subsequent independent work);

2) Setting the individual task, based on this analysis.

The tasks may include, for example, structural abstract based on the results of

knowledge analysis, calculation and graphic tasks, colloquiums, tests, written

questionnaires, etc. The module should always end with a control test. The

intermediate and output control is designed to check the level of assimilated

knowledge and skills within a single module or multiple modules. Then goes

relevant revision, adjustment, and the next "round", i.e., the subsequent module.

Student activity structuring within the logical stages of knowledge mastering

presents an important criterion for the module design: perception, understanding,

comprehension, memorizing, application, systematization. In this respect, there are

great opportunities for the problem-based learning.


Based on the above, modular training principles include the following:

1. Development of cognitive activities in students (module as part of the core

training information, perceived as the required one);

2. Respective capabilities and abilities of students;

3. Psychological comfort: favorable learning conditions are provided by the

training rhythm, differentiation of trainees by their knowledge level. On the other

hand - maximum learning autonomy is possible, along with conditions for the

implementation of temporary, physical, physiological and other specific features

required for working with educational materials at the discretion of each student -

all this minimizes stress conditions (or excludes them).

New technological approach requires a new technological orientation, namely:

● Preliminary design of the teaching and learning process; ● Spotlight - educational and cognitive activity of the student (successful

learning is anyway achieved through the efficiency of educational activity); ● Diagnostics of feasibility and objective testing results; ● Integrity of the educational process as a pedagogical system.

In modular training, goals are formed in terms of business practices and

student action methods.

Differences between the modular system and other didactic systems include:

1. The training content of training should be presented in complete

independent information blocks. The didactic purpose is formed for students and

contains not only the amount of learning content, but also the level of its

assimilation;

2. The modules allow translating learning to the subject-subject basis;

3. The student largely performs self-studies and learns planning, organization,

self-monitoring and assessment (self-esteem) of his/her actions and activities in

general;

4. Modules allow the teacher to individualize work with a particular student by

using consultations.

Individualization as a kind of differentiated training is most fully embodied in

the modular training. The most important feature of the modular approach is linked

to the most urgent task - to train people capable to adapt quickly to changes in

production and to the new circumstances, to take appropriate decisions and to solve

problems.

The value of the modular training system is the development of reflective

abilities in students by bringing up the ability to learn independently. It is essential

that the modular system, where educational activity is structured on: learning

situations, monitoring and evaluation, updates analytical and research skills of

specialists.

P.Y. Yutsyavichene (1989) formulated eight principles of this technology:

1. Modularity (training is based on modules);

2. The content of each module is divided into separate elements (this principle

requires dividing the material into small, closely related "portions");

3. Dynamism (this principle provides the freedom to change the content of the

modules, taking into account the social order dynamics, or changes in the training

program);


4. Method of work;

5. Flexibility;

6. Conscious perspective (the principle of student awareness on the near,

medium and long-term teaching prospects);

7. Versatility of methodical consultations;

8. Parity (the principle of subject-subject interaction between teachers and

students).

MT advantages include:

● Improved training quality, since the entire training is aimed at the

development of practical skills; ● Competence defines the required personal qualities; ● Reduced training time; ● Real individualization of training along with the real possibility of

creating individual training programs; ● Fast adaptation of educational and methodological materials to the

changing conditions, flexible response.

The observed setbacks include:

● long-term development of curriculum and teaching materials along with

significant time and cost of replication; ● The need to have modern furnished and well-equipped training places; ● Certain complexity of the teaching and learning process.

However, overcoming the difficulties depends mainly on the ability of the

training process organizers.

Discussion and Conclusion

John Dewey, L.S. Vygotsky (1991), and many other researchers believed that

the study transformed into development when the repertoire of knowledge of

students underwent genuine qualitative changes, presented by new forms of

thought, speech or action. During these training, old patterns of thought and actions

are transformed and the student takes the brand new social position. The new

worldview and relevant activities of the scheme are acquired only in the course of

such activity. (Example: the student learns to eat with a spoon, not while talking

about this process, but when this spoon is used by him for its intended purpose)

(Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2013).

In this regard, one should recall the idea once expressed by L.S. Vygotsky

(1991): the study group should resemble a workshop in which each session implies

reconstruction of newly obtained student knowledge. This occurs through the

interaction between teachers and students, and among students along with

understanding the new (acquired) knowledge.

In the course of this study students gain relevant skills and models of

independent work (including research), they interact with each other having a

desire to gain knowledge independently. Teaching of thinking occurs in the

interaction between the teacher and the students in solving "real" problems, which

imply the need of the teacher’s questions and student responses. Meanwhile, L.S.

Vygotsky (1991) noted that knowledge obtained by the student per se was not the

goal. The goal was the embodiment of knowledge in the social activity for public

benefit and cultural practices as well in the assimilated norms and values.


One should emphasize specific features of the teacher’s role in such training.

Authoritarian interaction is detrimental for productive learning. Consequently, the

teacher should learn to occupy the partner position in the interaction with the

students. Partner (the French word partenaire from Latin pars - part, share) means

the participant, companion. The term is usually used to refer to human

communication with those with whom he/she works with or is engaged in any kind

of business. Besides awareness of common goals and the will to achieve them,

partnerships are based on the ability to understand each other, to find something in

common, which will help stakeholders interact, using the ability of both parties to

act in a civilized manner, which is reasonable for the common good (Vygotsky,

1991).

The partnership, according to V.J. Liaudis (1972), is described as the highest

form of pedagogical interactions in solving creative problems. The system of

cyclically recurring forms implies the following: an introduction to the work, divided

between the teacher and student activities, simulated actions, supported actions,

self-regulatory actions, self-induced actions, and self-organized actions. As we move

from one form to another, its self-organization level, modes of communication vary,

the student freedom increases in terms of purposes and meanings of activities, as

well as in setting the new activities. Students become proactive partners. The ability

to partnership acts as an indicator of becoming an independent person, along with

productive development of the personality and the highest form of his/her self-

organization (Liadus, 1997).

Implications and Recommendations

This article presents a review and analysis of the available pedagogical

technologies existing in the system of higher education. Practically, it can serve as a

teaching tool for teachers of higher educational institutions.

Availability of pedagogical technologies in higher education greatly simplify the

learning process. However, in practice, few teachers are familiar with this concept

including its theoretical and practical aspects. Based on the analysis of various

research sources, the authors of this article defined the term "pedagogical

technology", specified its typological differences, and outlined the most relevant way

of its application, disadvantages and specific features.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Svetlana S. Kulmagambetova holds a PhD in Pedagogical Sciences and now is an

Associate Professor at West Kazakhstan State University named After M. Utemissov,

Uralsk, Kazakhstan.

Saltanat K. Iskindirova holds a PhD in Philological Sciences and now is a Dean of

the Philological department at Aktobe Regional State University named after

K. Zhubanov, Aktobe, Kazakhstan.

Zhadyra S. Kazhiakparova holds a PhD in Pedagogical sciences and now is a

Head of chair at West Kazakhstan Innovation and Technology University, Uralsk,

Kazakhstan.

Kulyash T. Bainiyeva holds a PhD in Philological Sciences and now is an

Associate Professor at Atyrau State University named after Kh. Dosmukhamedov,

Atyrau, Kazakhstan.


Chimay Pandya holds a PhD and now is a Pro Vice Chancellor in Pedagogics at

Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar, India.

References

Ai-lan, L. I. U. (2007). On the application of suggestive teaching method in chemistry teaching.

Journal of Hubei Normal University, 3, 25-32.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the

conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK. Computers & Education, 52(1),

154-168.

Babanskii, N. K. (1977). Professional training skill. Moscow.

Bespalko, V. P. (1995). Education and advanced training technologies. Moscow.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Davydov, V. V. (1995). On the concept of developmental training. Pedagogy, 995, 29-40.

Dyachenko, V. K. (2004). Collective teaching method. Moscow: Publishing house "Education".

García-Peñalvo, F. J., Colomo-Palacios, R., & Lytras, M. (2012). Outcomes of international research

projects on technology applied to education. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(1), 1-4.

Galimova, E.G. & Shvetsova, M.G. (2016). Modern Educational Technologies in Teaching Senior

Secondary Pupils’ Communication in the Form of a Monologue and in Generating Their

Cognitive Interest. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(8),

1951-1962. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2016.569a

Gitman, E. K. (2015). Concentrated training technology in vocational training. Psychological and

pedagogical sciences, 2, 24-37.

Goldshmid, B. & Goldshmid, M. L. (1972). Modular Instruction in higher education. Higher

education, 6, 36-47

Khristosenko, I. V. (1996). Probability Education: Psychologist view. School technology, 3, 57-88.

Kudryavtsev, V. T. (1991). Problem learning: origins, nature, perspective. Moscow: Knowledge.

Liaudis, V. J. (1997). The new paradigm of practical psychology and education. Psychological review,

3, 102-109.

Lobok, A. (1996). Probabilistic education. Education, 10, 151-155.

Makhmutov, M. I. (1975). Problem-based training: basic questions of the theory. Pedagogy, 994, 15-21.

Myasoyed, T. A. (2004). Interactive learning technologies. Special seminar for teachers, 46-49.

Ostapenko, A. A. (1999). Concentrated training: models of educational technology. School technology,

5, 116-154.

Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Measuring integration of information and communication

technology in education: An item response modeling approach. Computers & Education, 58(4),

1247-1259.

Postlethwait, S. N., Novak, I. & Murray, U. T. (1972). The audio-Tutorial Aproach to learning.

Minneapolies: Burgess Publishing.

Rock, A. J., Coventry, W. L., Morgan, M. I., & Loi, N. M. (2016). Teaching Research Methods and

Statistics in eLearning Environments: Pedagogy, Practical Examples, and Possible Futures.

Frontiers in psychology, 7, 86-92.

Rudy, S. (2016). Consultancy, disruption, and the pulse of pedagogy. Teaching and Learning

Together in Higher Education, 1(11), 12.

Sarkar, S. (2012). The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in higher education

for the 21st century. Science, 1(1), 30-41.

Selwyn, N. (2012). Education in a digital world: Global perspectives on technology and education.

Routledge.

Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012).

Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative

evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1991). Pedagogic psychology. Pedagogy, 986, 17-23.

Watson, D., & Tinsley, D. (2013). Integrating information technology into education. Springer.

Willis, J. (2008). Qualitative research methods in education and educational technology. New York:

IAP.


Yu, T., & Jo, I. H. (2014, March). Educational technology approach toward learning analytics:

Relationship between student online behavior and learning performance in higher education.

In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge

(pp. 269-270). ACM.

Yutsyavichene, P. Y. (1989). Theory and practice of modal education. Kaunas: Shviesa.

Zeer, E. F. (2015). Strategic guidelines for upgrading vocational teacher education: Discussion aspect

of scientific dialogue.

Kryukova, E. A. (2013). The Ket Language: From Descriptive Linguistics to Interdisciplinary

Research. Tomsk Journal LING &. ANTROPO, 1(1).

Documents

Comparative Review of Pedagogical Technologies in the ... · specialists (Rock et al, 2016). The paper outlined basic types of teaching techniques (Babanskii, 1977), their advantages